The main issue with Parfit is his claims about principles. For example, he believes that There...
The main issue with Parfit is his claims about principles. For example, he believes that
There are optimific principles - these together form the set of principles which, if followed on [1], will make things go best.
Now to be fair to Parfit, he does indirectly or directly (I can’t remember which) deal with the criticism I’m just about to mention, but still, I think this criticism is a part of a family of criticisms which kinda fuck up his project.
The short, cheeky version of the following criticism [or a short summary of the family of criticisms as aforementioned] might be something like this: Particularism is true.
The longer version is like this. I call it The Legal Objection. The idea is this: Laws try their best to treat all circumstances fairly - to give justice in all cases of wrong doing. However, there are some circumstances in which the law, as legislated, if used in court, will not fairly treat a particular case. The law cannot fairly treat all circumstances fairly. By analogy, any set of principles, no matter how good they are, may have to be violated in order to do the right thing.
I don’t think this is an argument I could back up deductively (or in plain English, logically prove it to be 100% completely true) because there are an infinite number of set of principles. I cannot check them all out one by one and say: ‘Yep they’re all a bit fucked’. However I can inductively argue (or in plain English, argue it to be true but with no logical guarantee that it is definitely 100% true [2]) that it’s true by going through sets of principles, and showing how they fail each time.
[1] As a side note Parfit has a shit definition of what it means to follow a principle. It is to do what is required of you. The reason why this is shit is because it ignores intention. We need intention built into this idea somewhere. For example, if I fell over and accidentally destroyed a child’s sandcastle, I might be, according to Parfit’s definition, acting on the principle of: ‘Destroy all of the sandcastles which are made by children’.
[2] That isn’t necessarily an issue. ‘The sun will rise up tomorrow’ [is traditionally seen by philosophers] to be an inductive claim which cannot be logically proved. On the rare off-chance somebody is reading this and is interested, look up: ‘the problem of induction’.
Parfit takes 150 pages [1] to conclude Everyone ought to follow the [the principles that make...
Parfit takes 150 pages [1] to conclude
Everyone ought to follow the [the principles that make things go best], because these are the only principles that everyone could [rationally and impartially] [want to be] [rules that everyone should accept and/or follow in their lives]. [2] [3]
I like it when people in academia do that. It’s due diligence.
[1] That is, 150 pages if you exclude his crucial work on reasons which is a vital supposition for his work in normative ethics; this is work which is laid out in On What Matters prior to you getting to his normative theory.
[2] This is a real quote, just heavily edited so it makes more sense to people who have not read the 150 or so pages prior to.
[3] This is Parfit’s normative ethical theory which neatly combines consequentialism, Kantian ethics and contractualism.
Photo
A post for everyotherusernameswastaken
You wanted talks. I want to give you a URL but I know the message system is shit in that regard. Anyway, this one’s good.
EDIT: Whoops, I meant to post this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8V8rtdXnLA
princesscoconut: yeah sorry im late dude my mom made me go...
yeah sorry im late dude my mom made me go clean my room. bitch. what server u in homie?
manhole cover designs throughout Japan
manhole cover designs throughout Japan
picassojawbone: this show is for little kids but it is the...
this show is for little kids but it is the funniest shit I have ever seen
favoritesticle: that'll teach him
that'll teach him
death-by-lulz: cancerously: Nailed it. Via/Follow The Absolute...
Nailed it.
Via/Follow The Absolute Greatest Posts…ever.
a-dinosaur-a-day: Pedopenna (PED-oh-PEN-ah) where: Woodlands of...
Pedopenna (PED-oh-PEN-ah)
where: Woodlands of Asia
when: Late Jurassic, about 154 to 150 million years ago
who: Fossils interpreted and dinosaur scientifically categorized by Xu Xing and Zhang Fucheng
what: The Pedopenna is a small, feathered dinosaur about 3 feet long and 5 to 10 pounds. It belongs to the Maniraptora clade and is probably an omnivore. It has long legs and long claws on its forelimbs. Its many birdlike features are further evidence of the connection between the dinosaur and its modern relative, the bird. While it did not have full flight capabilities, the pedopenna may have been able to flutter into trees and hop between branches.
‘We, the Labour Party, are committed to lowering unemployment and the deficit.’ —...
‘We, the Labour Party, are committed to lowering unemployment and the deficit.’ — You might as well read this as: ‘BOO DOWN WITH BAD THINGS’.
Everyone’s against unemployment, but really it’s about having an effective strategy to lower unemployment. The Labour Party’s philosophy right now is pro-having cake and eating it too, but without the guarantee that there’ll be an available fork.
I’m a democrat (as in, I believe we ought to have democracy) but I’m kind of sceptical...
I’m a democrat (as in, I believe we ought to have democracy) but I’m kind of sceptical of some democratic ideas.
The representational democratic idea that
the public ought to have the right to choose the representatives who will legislate on their behalf.
is okay. It’s an effective additional check on politicians.
However the complete representative democracy idea of
representatives ought to legislate the general will of the public.
I’m not okay with that.
Even if ‘the general will of the public’ was, in a practical sense, intelligible (i.e., how do you decipher the general will on the budget? and can there even be a general will on that crucial yet basic issue?) there is one core problem (besides other major issues): The right thing to legislate is not always what the public wills.
It is too hot to philosophise or just generally read but as I consequence I do not know what I want...
It is too hot to philosophise or just generally read but as I consequence I do not know what I want to do. Suggestions welcome.
Stewart Lee on anti-Islamic comedy.
Stewart Lee on anti-Islamic comedy.
daizette said: Every time someone tells me they're studying business and they don't sound sad about...
daizette said: Every time someone tells me they're studying business and they don't sound sad about it my head just goes, "?????? ?? ???? ??????????"
The only business student I knew very well at all was one of my first housemates. He left after a few weeks saying it was just absolute hell doing so many pointless spreadsheets.
He was also boring.
yourspiritualking said: What does it mean to experience? I’M SOBER NOW MATT
yourspiritualking said: What does it mean to experience?
I’M SOBER NOW MATT
Business tends to be a dull enterprise occupied by incredibly dull people.
Business tends to be a dull enterprise occupied by incredibly dull people.
deanleysen: These commercials would be so much better if they...
These commercials would be so much better if they left them in.
Stewart Lee is probably my favourite comedian.
Stewart Lee is probably my favourite comedian.
Pterosaurs are NOT dinosaurs
Just a friendly reminder.
Bonus fun fact: Used correctly, "pterodactyl" only applies to the genus Pterodactylus or, more broadly, to pterosaurs of the suborder Pterodactyloidea.
No comments:
Post a Comment